True, you don't have to call itemUpdated, but if anyone else wanted to know that it was updated, they'll never be notified.
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ben.clinkinbeard Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Updating a field in a Collection bound to DataGrid Is there any reason to call itemUpdated() if the row/item is not connected to anything else? More specifically, in the case of the ever popular CheckBox renderer, is there any reason to call itemUpdated() in the click handler after the actual value has been updated? I'm thinking no but want to make sure I'm not missing something. Thanks, Ben --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Alex Harui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It occurred to me that if you subclass, you can block the DG from seeing > some of the collectionevents and therefore block the full update. Then, > if you find another way to notify the renderer (binding may work) then > you can probably optimize the update. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of reflexactions > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 2:26 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Updating a field in a Collection bound to > DataGrid > > > > I can understand in some situations a grid is bound to xml and you > might have difficulty in detecting changes in thoses cases so you > just refresh everything, but in many more cases you bind a grid to > objects and its only affected by the current row. > > But regardless of that I really was just wondering whether there was > some other way of doing it that could bypass this refresh everything > approach becuase I am just changing one field but the grid is big > lots of columns and rows and redrawing the whole thing is very very > slow. A sort of "redraw the current row" method, I guess the answer > is no then... > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > , "Alex Harui" <aharui@> wrote: > > > > All rows are redrawn in case other rows were doing something > related as > > well. 4ex, a labelfunction could look fwd or back a row. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > ] On > > Behalf Of ben.clinkinbeard > > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 5:52 AM > > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Updating a field in a Collection bound to > > DataGrid > > > > > > > > Just shots in the dark here but is your collection filled with > > strongly typed objects? Are you passing the field name into > > itemUpdate() as well? > > > > Ben > > > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders% > 40yahoogroups.com> > > , "reflexactions" <reflexactions@> > > wrote: > > > > > > If I update a field in a Collection that is bound to a DataGrid > and > > > call itemUpdate it appears that the whole DataGrid is redrawn > rather > > > than just the cell the field was bound to or just the row the > field > > was > > > in. > > > > > > Is this correct or is there some more effecient way of just > changing a > > > > > single field or single row? > > > > > > tks > > > > > >
